Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FS library position() to return (size_t) -1 on error #10002

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 10, 2024

Conversation

drmpf
Copy link
Contributor

@drmpf drmpf commented Jul 10, 2024

Fix for error return from position()
PR Issue #9992

Description of Change

Currently FS::position() returns 0 if file is invalid, this change return (size_t) -1 instead, which is a very large number, to indicate an error

Tests scenarios

none

Related links

Closes #9992

Fix for error return from position()
Issue espressif#9992
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jul 10, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 10, 2024

Warnings
⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR:

  • the commit message "position_fix":
    • footer must have leading blank line
    • summary looks empty
    • type/action looks empty

Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips:

  • follow Conventional Commits style
  • correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue
  • allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test
  • sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter
  • avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers)

TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

⚠️

The source branch "PositionFix" incorrect format:

  • contains uppercase letters. This can cause troubles on case-insensitive file systems (macOS).
    Please rename your branch.

👋 Hello drmpf, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 5f586c4

Copy link
Contributor

Memory usage test (comparing PR against master branch)

The table below shows the summary of memory usage change (decrease - increase) in bytes and percentage for each target.

MemoryFLASH [bytes]FLASH [%]RAM [bytes]RAM [%]
TargetDECINCDECINCDECINCDECINC
ESP32S3000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32S2000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C3000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32C6000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32H2000.000.00000.000.00
ESP32000.000.00000.000.00
Click to expand the detailed deltas report [usage change in BYTES]
TargetESP32S3ESP32S2ESP32C3ESP32C6ESP32H2ESP32
ExampleFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAM
FFat/examples/FFat_Test000000000000
FFat/examples/FFat_time00000000--00
LittleFS/examples/LITTLEFS_test000000000000
LittleFS/examples/LITTLEFS_time00000000--00
SD/examples/SD_Test000000000000
SD/examples/SD_time00000000--00
SD_MMC/examples/SD2USBMSC00----------
SD_MMC/examples/SDMMC_Test00--------00
SD_MMC/examples/SDMMC_time00--------00
SPIFFS/examples/SPIFFS_Test000000000000
SPIFFS/examples/SPIFFS_time00000000--00

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 10, 2024

Test Results

 56 files  ±0   56 suites  ±0   5m 11s ⏱️ -7s
 21 tests ±0   21 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
135 runs  ±0  135 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 5f586c4. ± Comparison against base commit 4e3523c.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@me-no-dev me-no-dev added the Status: Review needed Issue or PR is awaiting review label Jul 10, 2024
@P-R-O-C-H-Y P-R-O-C-H-Y added Status: Pending Merge Pull Request is ready to be merged and removed Status: Review needed Issue or PR is awaiting review labels Jul 10, 2024
@igrr
Copy link
Member

igrr commented Jul 10, 2024

Would it make sense to change the return type to ssize_t if we want to return -1?

@me-no-dev
Copy link
Member

@igrr it is now exactly the same as in official SD lib. While surely we do agree that unsigned returning -1 is wrong, it is what ends up being done upstream.

@drmpf
Copy link
Contributor Author

drmpf commented Jul 10, 2024

No what is actually being returned here is NOT -1,
but rather ULONG_MAX
i.e. 4294967295
(size_t)-1 is just a short hand.
You can replace it with ULONG_MAX if you wish and still get the same result.

@me-no-dev
Copy link
Member

Yes @drmpf , but ULONG_MAX is not an invalid size. It just assumes that you will not have files that are that large.

@me-no-dev me-no-dev merged commit 0ab2c58 into espressif:master Jul 10, 2024
50 checks passed
@drmpf
Copy link
Contributor Author

drmpf commented Jul 10, 2024

Yes but ULONG_MAX a very (edit: unlikely) file position and far more unlikely a return value for a file position than 0.
The only way to avoid that is to use an out-of-band error return like ferror,
as the design of the method does not allow for a separate error turn.
You could change the method to
bool position(size_t &rtn);
but that is not backward compatible.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Pending Merge Pull Request is ready to be merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FS position method return valid position on error, should return -1
5 participants